The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I have spoken out against certain beliefs of Archbp. Puhalo before on this forum. Just tonight I alluded to one of them. However, I have also regretted saying negative things about him. I do not know if what he says is true. Certainly he does not shy away from controversy.

I recently saw a discussion on facebook in which Ab. Lazar Puhalo makes some incredibly disturbing accusations against a late hierarch of the Orthodox Church.

Could Ab. Puhalo be making this up? Has anyone here heard anything about this before?

A few observations off the top of my head. First, we should be very careful about gossip and to me, that is what this is. Second, the LGBT Coptic Church? Ridiculous. Third, visiting such an abomination is not the best use of your time.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Only because Archbishop Lazar is a hierarch of the Orthodox Church, retired supposedly, do I not write an aggressive condemnation of him for what he said on that deplorable "fb" page. That allegation about Archbishop Iakovos of Blessed Memory, is wholly and absolutely without merit; it is a vile lie. His Eminence was somewhat controversial due to his boldness, decisiveness and dynamism. Never to my knowledge, and I am and was involved with circles that would know, if homosexuality had even been alleged about him; never. And I know a few people who were in the know so to speak, who couldn't stand him and would have loved to have had anything they could seize upon to mess with him, during his 37 years upon the Throne of the Holy Archdiocese of America. Recall too, he previously served the Ecumenical Patriarchate as its representative to the World Council of Churches and he had a most successful tenure as the Dean of the Annunciation Cathedral in Boston, while he concurrently served as Assistant Dean of the Holy Cross Seminary soon after its founding; and he served +Athenagoras when he was Archbishop of America, as his deacon. He traveled in many circles and interacted with more people than most hierarchs typically would. NEVER was a homosexual allegation even waged against him. In fact, he was quoted when he was young, that he felt it improper to have a cell attendant or a maid so as to preclude any possible compromising allegation or scandal----I know that that is not necessarily consistent with Orthodox practice, but he had openly made this statement.

Archbishop Lazar blew it, he picked the wrong guy to falsely accuse.

The OCA's Holy Synod was meeting yesterday, they need to take action to silence this cleric. If the OCA Synod doesn't take action against this hierarch, a public action, then Archbishop Demetrios should demand a public retraction about this utterly false statement about one of his predecessors.

Could Lazar Puhalo be making this up? Has anyone here heard anything about this before?

View the link at your own risk.

You may not know this, but that happens to be Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo). I have a strong feeling about who the unnamed bishop he mentions is; and I am a bit disturbed that the Archbishop has made the accusation against that bishop. I am even more disturbed that he openly accuses Archbishop Iakovos.

I went back and took notes. He makes the same allegation about Archbishop Demetrios, "the now ruling Archbishop." Another very false unfounded allegation about another respected hierarch whose character is beyond any question that of the finest of hierarchs. I wonder if he cares that "the now ruling Archbishop" is also the Chairman of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North & Central America. This behavior of Archbishop Lazar cannot stand!

Perhaps it's because it's coming from Ab Lazar, whom I don't trust (I've met him 2x). But, I find it shameful that he would boldly accuse someone who can no longer defend himself and then purposely leave out the name of a living Bishop whom he says is "openly gay"

I went back and took notes. He makes the same allegation about Archbishop Demetrios, "the now ruling Archbishop." Another very false unfounded allegation about another respected hierarch whose character is beyond any question that of the finest of hierarchs. I wonder if he cares that "the now ruling Archbishop" is also the Chairman of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North & Central America. This behavior of Archbishop Lazar cannot stand!

After reading His Eminence's response, I feel he is not naming Archbishop Demetrios, but a "ruling" archbishop. This Archbishop could be anyone...the OCA has quite a few Archbishops, too. For all he has said, the OCA should reprimand him, as well as, silence him permanently.

Perhaps it's because it's coming from Ab Lazar, whom I don't trust (I've met him 2x). But, I find it shameful that he would boldly accuse someone who can no longer defend himself and then purposely leave out the name of a living Bishop whom he says is "openly gay"

I am with you on this; he should not have used a person no longer with us to make his point, which was that homosexual conduct is a sin like all others and that a person's worth should not be judged by only one aspect of his life. He does go on and profusely praise Archbishop Iakovos. Looks like in old age, tongues loosen. As with Archbishop Lazar, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has also been known to have loose lips. So, what is the solution to retired and aged clergy? the only thing that I can think of is prayers for them and for us (to develop thicker hides). Lord have mercy!

Perhaps it's because it's coming from Ab Lazar, whom I don't trust (I've met him 2x). But, I find it shameful that he would boldly accuse someone who can no longer defend himself and then purposely leave out the name of a living Bishop whom he says is "openly gay"

I am with you on this; he should not have used a person no longer with us to make his point, which was that homosexual conduct is a sin like all others and that a person's worth should not be judged by only one aspect of his life. He does go on and profusely praise Archbishop Iakovos. Looks like in old age, tongues loosen. As with Archbishop Lazar, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has also been known to have loose lips. So, what is the solution to retired and aged clergy? the only thing that I can think of is prayers for them and for us (to develop thicker hides). Lord have mercy!

What do do with retired hierarchs? The Russian solution ion the old days was the best one: let them all retire to a monastery and be simple monks again.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 05:23:28 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

He does not "rightly" call him "Deposed Deacon Lev." He is an Archbishop of the Orthodox Church in America.

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

Oops, it looks like I missed a couple of his many jumps. But they did not clarify that he was with the "Free Serbs", and Orthodox group who recognized nobody that eventually was received by the Serbian Orthodox Church as they were out of economia, and so he fled them too.

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

Oops, it looks like I missed a couple of his many jumps. But they did not clarify that he was with the "Free Serbs", and Orthodox group who recognized nobody that eventually was received by the Serbian Orthodox Church as they were out of economia, and so he fled them too.

Yes, it looks like he spent most of his life doing short sprints.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 06:02:15 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Syond received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

Thanks for this, I need it. For what heresy did ROCOR depose him? Does anyone know why the OCA took him in, "by economy" "in retirement?" Looks like he has a nice monastery he established.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

Why would the OCA Synod accept AB Lazar into the ranks of the RETIRED BISHOPS in the first place? :facepalm: They certainly knew his record of instability and controversy. Of interest, the OCA says that his biography is unavailable. I wonder why?

ROCOR - Deacon from 1972 to 1980 (deposed for heresy);Serbian Jurisdiction in 1981; ordained to Priesthood;GOC under Chrysostomos II and Met. Paisios in 1988; raised to Archimandrite;Holy Synod of Milan in 1990; consecrated as Bishop of Vancouver, Washington;Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1996; elevated to AB;Kiev Patriarchate in 1997; OCA Synod in 2003; received by economia as a Retired AB in the OCA; served as Civil Liaison between the OCA-Canada and the Canada government

It seems that the ROCOR Holy Synod was unhappy with both the "soul sleep" and "toll-house" theories. However, the Holy Synod was even more unhappy when +Lazar's failure to obey the "cease and desist" order that it issued:

"Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvation.

In view of this, at the present time of the Synod of Bishop's demands the cessation in our magazines of controversy on dogmatic questions and, in particular, on questions concerning life after death. This controversy must be ended on both sides, and Deacon Lev Puhalo is forbidden to lecture in the parishes until he signs a pledge satisfactory to the Synod to terminate his public statements on questions of internal disputes between Orthodox on subjects which may provoke confusion among the faithful.

(Resolved also:) To announce this resolution to Deacon Lev Puhalo and to editors of religious magazines."

Perhaps it's because it's coming from Ab Lazar, whom I don't trust (I've met him 2x). But, I find it shameful that he would boldly accuse someone who can no longer defend himself and then purposely leave out the name of a living Bishop whom he says is "openly gay"

I am with you on this; he should not have used a person no longer with us to make his point, which was that homosexual conduct is a sin like all others and that a person's worth should not be judged by only one aspect of his life. He does go on and profusely praise Archbishop Iakovos. Looks like in old age, tongues loosen. As with Archbishop Lazar, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has also been known to have loose lips. So, what is the solution to retired and aged clergy? the only thing that I can think of is prayers for them and for us (to develop thicker hides). Lord have mercy!

What do do with retired hierarchs? The Russian solution ion the old days was the best one: let them all retire to a monastery and be simple monks again.

To listen to some of the posters lately, they would endorse the old English system. The Tower and then.....

It seems that the ROCOR Holy Synod was unhappy with both the "soul sleep" and "toll-house" theories.

The Synod was not unhappy with both "soul sleep" and the toll-house teaching. The Synod was unhappy with the bitter controversy, open letters, and open debates between both parties, so both parties were told to cease the controversy. However, only Deacon Lev's teachings were rejected as heretical, for which he was deposed. The Synod continued to publish materials on the tollhouse teaching after Deacon Lev was deposed, so the insistence of the Synod that the controversy end should not be misinterpreted as an indication that the Synod disagreed with the tollhouse teaching or forbade publication of materials on the tollhouse teaching.

As for Abp Lazar, if one cares for their soul they will ignore him altogether. Hopefully, the OCA will find a way to discipline him for his heretical and blasphemous ideas, but sadly the OCA has so many other problems to deal with. For those who think he is credible because of his title, it should be remembered (as others have pointed out) that Abp Lazar was never an active bishop in any real Orthodox Church. After he was deposed as a deacon he had some success gaining titles in various sectarian groups that are not recognized by the Orthodox Church. For some unfortunate reason, the OCA allowed him to keep the title of “retired Archbishop” when they received him, though he was not permitted to serve as a bishop in any capacity in the OCA. This man is extremely controversial and one cannot taste much of his teaching without ingesting a whole lot of poison.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

though he was not permitted to serve as a bishop in any capacity in the OCA.

What?

Meaning that Abp Lazar has never functioned as a bishop in the OCA or as a member of any legitimate synod of bishops. In the OCA he is not permitted to participate in the Synod, oversee a diocese, ordain priests and deacons, etc. While the OCA certainly did allow him to retain this honorary title, he should not be regarded as one who has ever actively served the Church in the capacity of a bishop or Archbishop.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

though he was not permitted to serve as a bishop in any capacity in the OCA.

What?

Meaning that Abp Lazar has never functioned as a bishop in the OCA or as a member of any legitimate synod of bishops. In the OCA he is not permitted to participate in the Synod, oversee a diocese, ordain priests and deacons, etc. While the OCA certainly did allow him to retain this honorary title, he should not be regarded as one who has ever actively served the Church in the capacity of a bishop or Archbishop.

He's celebrated the liturgy hasn't he? It isn't merely an "honorary title," he is a bishop of the Body of Christ.

If his ordination was removed by ROCOR then doesn't it have to be reinstated by ROCOR to be recognized and to be "elevated"?

According to proper canonical order yes. At the time the OCA received him, ROCOR had not yet regularized their relationship with the MP and was thus (from the OCA's point of view) itself in a canonically questionable place. He was by no means the only former ROCOR clergy taken in by the OCA in a way that would be unacceptable between two sister Churches that were on good terms (and the door worked the other way as well with ROCOR taking in suspended and deposed OCA and MP clergy without proper canonical process). One of the most important results of the reunion of the MP & ROCOR in 2007 was the cessation of this kind of jurisdiction hopping by clergy.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Syond received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Are you talking about Metropolitan Jonah and how when he was forced to resign they took away his title of "His Beatitude" too?

Yes, Ron Haler, alias Ron Buehler, alias Lev Puhalo was ordained a Deacon in the ROCOR. There was at that time a well-known Priest in ROCOR, a convert, Father Seraphim Rose who is now WIDELY venerated as a Saint in various Local Orthodox Churches. Father Seraphim was traditionally pious and conventionally so, except in the degree of his piety which was limitless. In the course of his life and teaching he displayed the conventional prayerbook belief in the so-call Toll Houses.

The Deacon Lev Puhalo, fastened on this as a weakness which might allow him to replace Father Seraphim as a leading light of the Church and he initiated a fierce and never ending battle against “belief in Toll Houses.” He branded such a belief “heresy.” “There began a struggle in letters and otherwise in print, and a division amongst believers hitherto unseen. The Synod of Hierarchs of ROCOR took an interest. Both Deacon Puhalo and Father Seraphim were directed to refrain from public disputation on the topic. The whole concept of Toll Houses was a matter of the Prayers of the Church, but such details of the Afterlife had not come down to us in the Holy Tradition and could not, therefor be affirmed or denied with authority.

Deacon Puhalo, however, continued (as he still does today) to speak “with authority” and to deny authoritatively that the Toll Houses exist and “Belief In” them is a heresy. He did not exempt Jordanville’s Professor of Dogmatic Theology from his doctrinal condemnations of heresy. When he wouldn’t stop, he was directed by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) to cease, to repent, and to enter the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (then still a monastery in good standing in ROCOR). Puhalo, obviously and patently could never submit to any higher ****spiritual***** authority than himself. He was deposed by the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. He took refuge under the omophorion of the then schismatic Primate of the Free Serbs, Metropolitan Ireney. He told that Metropolitan that he had to leave ROCOR because Bishop Grabbe was trying to turn him into a homosexual by sending him to that monastery for that very purpose. (“To turn him into a homosexual…” it has a certain ring to it, no?) Then, according to Puhalo’s OWN narrative, submitted to the OCAs synod, ireney agreed that since ROCOR was a non-canonical and schismatic group it couldn’t depose Puhalo (but could ordain him?). so he received him and immediately ordained him to the (schismatic) priesthood.. Unfortunately Puhalo, however, the schismatics were received back into the Church ofSerbia through Patriarch Pavle of blessed memory.

Since the Serbian Church had always been in full communion with ROCOR, Puhalo had to find another place FAST. The only place available was the schismastic ‘Synod of Milan’ whose Primate was a certain Evloghios and who had two other hierarchical cohorts at that time. (Hearing the names of Euloghios and the others at an OCA Holy Synod session, Archbishop Peter burst out with: “But I know them! I know them all! They are all homosexuals. Euloghios was deposed himself as a Deacon! They are all the same!’”

No one questioned Archbishop Peter’s assessment due to his long service and former life in Europe. Every member of the Holy Synod at that time heard Archbishop Peter: Metropolitan Theodosius, Archbishop Kirill, Archbishop Nathaniel, Bishop Dmitri, Bishop Gregory (Afonsky), Bishop JOB, Bishop SERAPHIM, Bishop Boris, Archbishop Herman. Every one of them. It was years after that, when Metropolitan Herman had become First Hierarch, that Archbishop Job, Bishop Seraphim again raised Puhalo’s banner in the Synod with the claim that “He’s a widely read Bishop, and he has a flourishing monastic community in western Canada, and it would be a great achievement in overcoming schisms if we would receive him into the OCA. He doesn’t want a diocese; he’s not interested in that. He just needs to be “brought home” (Seraphim) to the canonical Church!”

By the way, by this time, Puhalo’s Milan Synod had made him an Archbishop in Canada, after having merged “canonically” (!!!) with “The Patrarchate of Kiev.” I rather forcefully opposed that, and I thought it had been put behind us. No action was taken whatsoever. However, the next Holy Synod meeting took place at St. Tikhon’s Monastery and Seminary (from where Metropolitan Herman ruled the Diocese of New York and WSAHINGTON ).

On my way to my car to drive myself (as I always did) to the airport, I had an attack of vertigo and fell down. I went back in the house and lay down for a while before calling the Chancery to ask them to let His Beatitude know I was indisposed and would not be attending that meeting of the Holy Synod (we didn’t have smart phones with Holy Synod Meeting apps then).

I was literally horrified when I read that the Holy Synod had received the Puhalo as a ‘retired bishop.” I called Metropolitan Herman and asked him, begged him, to at least not concelebrate with that person until I had a chance to present all the evidence which showed such a reception to be wrong. I said I would not go into schism if, after my presentation, the Synod did not agree with me. He agreed. At the next scheduled meeting of the Synod at Syosset, I presented the case. There were about ten pages of documents, many of them authored by Puhalo, and evidence (including photos of him serving with non-canonical entities such as “Metropolitan Stephen of Cleveland and Mississaugua” who heads a gay-friendly pseudoChurch. (A married deacon, wanamaker, who with wife and children served at Father Gregory Safchuk’s parish, had announced he was gay and had left his wife for a man. He and Father Gregory came to me and asked what could be done (!!!!!!!!).

Father Gregory finally said, “So, NOTHING can be done, Your Grace?” Later I was informed by that Wanamaker that there was nothing to worry about: he had been received by Metropolitan Stephen and “they have no problem with gays.”) After I had presented the case in full the hierarchs were excited and seemingly dismayed. So much head-shaking! So much “Well, we never knew about all that” and so on and so on.

Then Archbishop Kirill, while Archbishop Peter nodded his head, said that the problem was that the announcement had been made. We could not reverse such a synodal decision without causing an uproar against the Synod and a scandal in the Church. Everybody looked at me. Metropolitan Herman said to me, “You said you would not go into schism if we did not reverse our decision, right?” I said “yes.” “Well, then,” says Herman, “That’s it.” I went around an picked up all the materials I had passed out. Perhaps they’ll go into an appendix to my memoirs-in-progress, I don’t know.

Puhalo’s crusade against Toll Houses continues. By the way, I forgot to mention that Metropolitan Herman said he had asked someone from SVS to give us an opinion on Puhalo’s canonicity or lack of it. This turned out to be Father Alexander Rentel, a liturgical specialist and NOT, then, a canonist. When Metropolitan Herman turned to him for his opinon, he deigned to inform us that he had been over Puhalo’s entire record, and there was “nothing heretical in any of his teaching.” The others seemed to like that. I believe he had a child as Haler or Buehler, and the child may be buried at the monastery seminary

He’s not a bishop. He’s a Deacon, deposed by the same Hierarchy that ordained him to the Diaconate.Ireney ordained him to the presbytery without ordaining him even to the schismatic diaconate, but accepting the ordination of ROCOR which he labelled schismatic and uncanonical.

From that date until now, there have been no signs of God’s favor in the life of the OCA; in fact, in that connnection, one of the most vehement and persistent, forceful voices FOR receiving Puhalo was that of EVER-MEMORABLE Archbishop Job, second only to that of Bishop Seraphim (Storheim).

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Syond received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Are you talking about Metropolitan Jonah and how when he was forced to resign they took away his title of "His Beatitude" too?

I've read that they took away the style of "His Beatitude," but I have not read this anywhere on the OCA website, and until I see something from the Synod, I will continue to refer to him as His Beatitude.

Yes, Ron Haler, alias Ron Buehler, alias Lev Puhalo was ordained a Deacon in the ROCOR. There was at that time a well-known Priest in ROCOR, a convert, Father Seraphim Rose who is now WIDELY venerated as a Saint in various Local Orthodox Churches. Father Seraphim was traditionally pious and conventionally so, except in the degree of his piety which was limitless. In the course of his life and teaching he displayed the conventional prayerbook belief in the so-call Toll Houses.

The Deacon Lev Puhalo, fastened on this as a weakness which might allow him to replace Father Seraphim as a leading light of the Church and he initiated a fierce and never ending battle against “belief in Toll Houses.” He branded such a belief “heresy.” “There began a struggle in letters and otherwise in print, and a division amongst believers hitherto unseen. The Synod of Hierarchs of ROCOR took an interest. Both Deacon Puhalo and Father Seraphim were directed to refrain from public disputation on the topic. The whole concept of Toll Houses was a matter of the Prayers of the Church, but such details of the Afterlife had not come down to us in the Holy Tradition and could not, therefor be affirmed or denied with authority.

Deacon Puhalo, however, continued (as he still does today) to speak “with authority” and to deny authoritatively that the Toll Houses exist and “Belief In” them is a heresy. He did not exempt Jordanville’s Professor of Dogmatic Theology from his doctrinal condemnations of heresy. When he wouldn’t stop, he was directed by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) to cease, to repent, and to enter the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (then still a monastery in good standing in ROCOR). Puhalo, obviously and patently could never submit to any higher ****spiritual***** authority than himself. He was deposed by the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. He took refuge under the omophorion of the then schismatic Primate of the Free Serbs, Metropolitan Ireney. He told that Metropolitan that he had to leave ROCOR because Bishop Grabbe was trying to turn him into a homosexual by sending him to that monastery for that very purpose. (“To turn him into a homosexual…” it has a certain ring to it, no?) Then, according to Puhalo’s OWN narrative, submitted to the OCAs synod, ireney agreed that since ROCOR was a non-canonical and schismatic group it couldn’t depose Puhalo (but could ordain him?). so he received him and immediately ordained him to the (schismatic) priesthood.. Unfortunately Puhalo, however, the schismatics were received back into the Church ofSerbia through Patriarch Pavle of blessed memory.

Since the Serbian Church had always been in full communion with ROCOR, Puhalo had to find another place FAST. The only place available was the schismastic ‘Synod of Milan’ whose Primate was a certain Evloghios and who had two other hierarchical cohorts at that time. (Hearing the names of Euloghios and the others at an OCA Holy Synod session, Archbishop Peter burst out with: “But I know them! I know them all! They are all homosexuals. Euloghios was deposed himself as a Deacon! They are all the same!’”

No one questioned Archbishop Peter’s assessment due to his long service and former life in Europe. Every member of the Holy Synod at that time heard Archbishop Peter: Metropolitan Theodosius, Archbishop Kirill, Archbishop Nathaniel, Bishop Dmitri, Bishop Gregory (Afonsky), Bishop JOB, Bishop SERAPHIM, Bishop Boris, Archbishop Herman. Every one of them. It was years after that, when Metropolitan Herman had become First Hierarch, that Archbishop Job, Bishop Seraphim again raised Puhalo’s banner in the Synod with the claim that “He’s a widely read Bishop, and he has a flourishing monastic community in western Canada, and it would be a great achievement in overcoming schisms if we would receive him into the OCA. He doesn’t want a diocese; he’s not interested in that. He just needs to be “brought home” (Seraphim) to the canonical Church!”

By the way, by this time, Puhalo’s Milan Synod had made him an Archbishop in Canada, after having merged “canonically” (!!!) with “The Patrarchate of Kiev.” I rather forcefully opposed that, and I thought it had been put behind us. No action was taken whatsoever. However, the next Holy Synod meeting took place at St. Tikhon’s Monastery and Seminary (from where Metropolitan Herman ruled the Diocese of New York and WSAHINGTON ).

On my way to my car to drive myself (as I always did) to the airport, I had an attack of vertigo and fell down. I went back in the house and lay down for a while before calling the Chancery to ask them to let His Beatitude know I was indisposed and would not be attending that meeting of the Holy Synod (we didn’t have smart phones with Holy Synod Meeting apps then).

I was literally horrified when I read that the Holy Synod had received the Puhalo as a ‘retired bishop.” I called Metropolitan Herman and asked him, begged him, to at least not concelebrate with that person until I had a chance to present all the evidence which showed such a reception to be wrong. I said I would not go into schism if, after my presentation, the Synod did not agree with me. He agreed. At the next scheduled meeting of the Synod at Syosset, I presented the case. There were about ten pages of documents, many of them authored by Puhalo, and evidence (including photos of him serving with non-canonical entities such as “Metropolitan Stephen of Cleveland and Mississaugua” who heads a gay-friendly pseudoChurch. (A married deacon, wanamaker, who with wife and children served at Father Gregory Safchuk’s parish, had announced he was gay and had left his wife for a man. He and Father Gregory came to me and asked what could be done (!!!!!!!!).

Father Gregory finally said, “So, NOTHING can be done, Your Grace?” Later I was informed by that Wanamaker that there was nothing to worry about: he had been received by Metropolitan Stephen and “they have no problem with gays.”) After I had presented the case in full the hierarchs were excited and seemingly dismayed. So much head-shaking! So much “Well, we never knew about all that” and so on and so on.

Then Archbishop Kirill, while Archbishop Peter nodded his head, said that the problem was that the announcement had been made. We could not reverse such a synodal decision without causing an uproar against the Synod and a scandal in the Church. Everybody looked at me. Metropolitan Herman said to me, “You said you would not go into schism if we did not reverse our decision, right?” I said “yes.” “Well, then,” says Herman, “That’s it.” I went around an picked up all the materials I had passed out. Perhaps they’ll go into an appendix to my memoirs-in-progress, I don’t know.

Puhalo’s crusade against Toll Houses continues. By the way, I forgot to mention that Metropolitan Herman said he had asked someone from SVS to give us an opinion on Puhalo’s canonicity or lack of it. This turned out to be Father Alexander Rentel, a liturgical specialist and NOT, then, a canonist. When Metropolitan Herman turned to him for his opinon, he deigned to inform us that he had been over Puhalo’s entire record, and there was “nothing heretical in any of his teaching.” The others seemed to like that. I believe he had a child as Haler or Buehler, and the child may be buried at the monastery seminary

He’s not a bishop. He’s a Deacon, deposed by the same Hierarchy that ordained him to the Diaconate.Ireney ordained him to the presbytery without ordaining him even to the schismatic diaconate, but accepting the ordination of ROCOR which he labelled schismatic and uncanonical.

From that date until now, there have been no signs of God’s favor in the life of the OCA; in fact, in that connnection, one of the most vehement and persistent, forceful voices FOR receiving Puhalo was that of EVER-MEMORABLE Archbishop Job, second only to that of Bishop Seraphim (Storheim).

It disturbs me a great deal that His Grace has no problem publicly contradicting the Holy Synod, while at the same time accusing the Archbishop of being incapable of submitting to a higher spiritual authority.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Synod received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Are you talking about Metropolitan Jonah and how when he was forced to resign they took away his title of "His Beatitude" too?

I've read that they took away the style of "His Beatitude," but I have not read this anywhere on the OCA website, and until I see something from the Synod, I will continue to refer to him as His Beatitude.

Have you noticed on the OCA website that under "Former and Retired Bishops" the disgraced (Per the SIC Report, '08) Metropolitans Theodosios and Herman are referred to as "The Most Blessed," and Metropolitan Jonah is referred to as "The Most Reverend?" I really think that this distinction is terribly unfair to Metropolitan Jonah, unless, perhaps they would have accepted his predecessors retirements likewise, as opposed to how those Synods accepted their retirements.

Also, the Synodal action was recorded as Metropolitan Jonah's retirement was accepted and that he would be "His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah, former Archbishop of Washington D.C. and Metropolitan of All America and Canada."

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Synod received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Are you talking about Metropolitan Jonah and how when he was forced to resign they took away his title of "His Beatitude" too?

I've read that they took away the style of "His Beatitude," but I have not read this anywhere on the OCA website, and until I see something from the Synod, I will continue to refer to him as His Beatitude.

Have you noticed on the OCA website that under "Former and Retired Bishops" the disgraced (Per the SIC Report, '08) Metropolitans Theodosios and Herman are referred to as "The Most Blessed," and Metropolitan Jonah is referred to as "The Most Reverend?" I really think that this distinction is terribly unfair to Metropolitan Jonah, unless, perhaps they would have accepted his predecessors retirements likewise, as opposed to how those Synods accepted their retirements.

Also, the Synodal action was recorded as Metropolitan Jonah's retirement was accepted and that he would be "His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah, former Archbishop of Washington D.C. and Metropolitan of All America and Canada."

That's just how the Most Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops of the Holy Synod chose to consider Metropolitan Jonah in his "retirement," as "His Eminence, Metropolitan Jonah, former Archbishop of Washington and Metropolitan of All America and Canada" per the minutes of the meeting of the Holy Synod.

I'm not sure though, what is appropriate practice. I can't think of precedent, but I don't think that it is necessarily so wrong, even though previous synods had considered his two disgraced predecessors (per the '08 SIC Report), as "Most Blessed," I'm thinking the Synod was thinking that there should only be one "Most Blessed" "His Beatitude," the primate, at any given time. I would guess the present Synod would not have allowed the two other "retired" former primates to remain "Most Blessed," if it were their choice. I don't think the Synod intended to penalize Metropolitan Jonah by considering him as "His Eminence."

If a Greek ruling hierarch retires at a younger age, who might be given another assignment, they would "elect" him to a titular see. Metropolitan Silas of New Jersey, was elected Metropolitan of Trianta Ecclesias (an inactive, ancient see) when the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople retired him; he wasn't at a younger age, but was in poor health and did not submit a request for retirement, but I think they wanted to give him an honorary title. But, Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, was considered "former Metropolitan of Pittsburgh," in retirement. And Archbishop Iakovos was considered "former Archbishop of N. & S. America." Archbishop Spyridon was coerced into requesting retirement and to be considered "former Archbishop of America," but the Constantinople Synod elected him "Metropolitan of Chaldea," an Elder See in Asia Minor, though their intention was to give him another assignment, which he refused to accept. I can't think of his name right now, but Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras' predecessor was retired and elected to an honorary, titular, but elder ancient see, he did not remain "His All Holiness," but was "His Eminence."

I am interested in what others think about the matter of an episcopal title upon retirement.

Perhaps it's because it's coming from Ab Lazar, whom I don't trust (I've met him 2x). But, I find it shameful that he would boldly accuse someone who can no longer defend himself and then purposely leave out the name of a living Bishop whom he says is "openly gay"

I am with you on this; he should not have used a person no longer with us to make his point, which was that homosexual conduct is a sin like all others and that a person's worth should not be judged by only one aspect of his life. He does go on and profusely praise Archbishop Iakovos. Looks like in old age, tongues loosen. As with Archbishop Lazar, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has also been known to have loose lips. So, what is the solution to retired and aged clergy? the only thing that I can think of is prayers for them and for us (to develop thicker hides). Lord have mercy!

What do do with retired hierarchs? The Russian solution ion the old days was the best one: let them all retire to a monastery and be simple monks again.

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

The now retired Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco was still part of the OCA Synod at the time of AB Lazar's acceptance by economia as a RETIRED Archbishop in 2003. AB Benjamin was not consecrated a bishop until 2004. I gather that Bishop Tikhon's vote was in the minority.

But it was still the decision of the Holy Syond; and the fact that His Grace was on the Holy Synod at the time - and presumably, therefore, was able to speak on the issue - is all the more reason for him to abide by the decision of the Synod. And I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Archbishop Lazar was received by economia or as a retired Archbishop - the fact remains that the Holy Synod received him as an Archbishop. Or should His Grace Tikhon cease to be referred to as a bishop, simply because he is retired, or Metropolitan Job ceased to be called His Beatitude simply because the entire Synod requested his resignation?

Are you talking about Metropolitan Jonah and how when he was forced to resign they took away his title of "His Beatitude" too?

I've read that they took away the style of "His Beatitude," but I have not read this anywhere on the OCA website, and until I see something from the Synod, I will continue to refer to him as His Beatitude.

Have you noticed on the OCA website that under "Former and Retired Bishops" the disgraced (Per the SIC Report, '08) Metropolitans Theodosios and Herman are referred to as "The Most Blessed," and Metropolitan Jonah is referred to as "The Most Reverend?" I really think that this distinction is terribly unfair to Metropolitan Jonah, unless, perhaps they would have accepted his predecessors retirements likewise, as opposed to how those Synods accepted their retirements.

Also, the Synodal action was recorded as Metropolitan Jonah's retirement was accepted and that he would be "His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah, former Archbishop of Washington D.C. and Metropolitan of All America and Canada."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

With the outrageous, wholly inaccurate vile "information" stated in public media, on a perverse forum, by an Orthodox hierarch, demonstrated in the lead message of this post, "How Christian of you," is certainly not the appropriate instance for the stated sarcasm.

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

How Christian of you.

Don't you dare judge me. I have done nothing to you to be spoken to like this. I was on the grounds when this happened, and know the circumstances of it. If you want to know further details probably +Tikhon of the West would be the best to give them to you, although he was not the Bishop who first gave the details to me. Abp Lazar was uncanonical for a reason, and did not repent of his sins before being received.

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

How Christian of you.

If you want to know further details probably +Tikhon of the West would be the best (meaning most likely) to give them to you, although he was not the Bishop who first gave the details to me.

Are you seriously recommending that someone speak to Bishop Tikhon, retired bishop of the OCA DOW? If so, I find it absolutely scandalous!

I am saying that he would be the most likely to give you details. No one else, including myself, would. No I never said "recommend." You can get off your high horse once you figure out how to spell your pseudonym.

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

How Christian of you.

If you want to know further details probably +Tikhon of the West would be the best (meaning most likely) to give them to you, although he was not the Bishop who first gave the details to me.

Are you seriously recommending that someone speak to Bishop Tikhon, retired bishop of the OCA DOW? If so, I find it absolutely scandalous!

I am saying that he would be the most likely to give you details. No one else, including myself, would. No I never said "recommend." You can get off your high horse once you figure out how to spell your pseudonym.

No high horse, Father. It was a serious question. Nice jab, BTW. I hope it made you feel better.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

How Christian of you.

If you want to know further details probably +Tikhon of the West would be the best (meaning most likely) to give them to you, although he was not the Bishop who first gave the details to me.

Are you seriously recommending that someone speak to Bishop Tikhon, retired bishop of the OCA DOW? If so, I find it absolutely scandalous!

I am saying that he would be the most likely to give you details. No one else, including myself, would. No I never said "recommend." You can get off your high horse once you figure out how to spell your pseudonym.

Agreed, but +Puhalo--as another OCA hierarch has stated--should have never been received back into the canonical Orthodox Church.

How Christian of you.

Since having read this post 13 hours ago, it has stuck in my mind. It is THE MOST UNFOUNDED POST I have ever seen on "OC.net" since I signed up nearly 5 years ago. "FatherHLL" has only contributed facts and informed opinions to this and other topics; he should be considered a valued member of this forum, one whose participation should be fostered, not to be provocatively attacked.

This thread is a disclosure of a publicly pronounced post made on another site, a "facebook" page of vile substance. The fact that a hierarch of Orthodox Christianity would even read or post on such a page is cause for substantial concern in and of itself, something his hierarchical authorities should be examining. And then, this hierarch writes on the site, for public consumption, an absolutely false accusation about the life style of one of the most esteemed and dynamic hierarchs to have served Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos, former primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. America, of Blessed Memory. He also makes a similar statement about another currently active, ruling American hierarch, which I thought was Archbishop Demetrios, but other posters have indicated that may not be the case. The allegation Archbishop Lazar posted on the homosexual related "facebook" page is as erroneous, deplorable, and vile as can be imagined, exceptionally unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian, and a hierarch at that.

"FatherHLL" among others, especially "Nigula Qian Zishi's" Reply No. 39's posting from the retired Bishop Tikhon, formerly of Los Angeles, have provided a perspective about Titular Archbishop Lazar, and the "economy" by which he was received into canonical Orthodoxy, as a "retired" hierarch, and I'd assume, first being elected to a titular see--a unique manner of reception. The information has been most valuable in developing an understanding of His Eminence's actions as seen in his post at issue, and will be a substantial contribution to the ultimate outcome in connection with Archbishop Lazar's actions as evidenced by his post which is at issue herein. And "FatherHLL's" comment in Reply No. 47 that you reply to sarcastically, implying it is un-Christian, is not that at all, is a rather rational and appropriate comment in light of the factual circumstances.

Michal, your "How Christian of you" post is provocative and passive-aggressive, utterly uncalled for, wholly inappropriate, and wrong minded. Your comment would be more appropriately addressed to the "retired," Titular Archbishop in response to his "facebook" post.

I ask you to reconsider the commentary you have sarcastically, erroneously deemed essentially un-Christian, and apologize to "FatherHLL" and the other members of "OC.net" for your, provocative, unwarranted statement in your Reply No. 49.

Since having read this post 13 hours ago, it has stuck in my mind. It is THE MOST UNFOUNDED POST I have ever seen on "OC.net" since I signed up nearly 5 years ago. "FatherHLL" has only contributed facts and informed opinions to this and other topics; he should be considered a valued member of this forum, one whose participation should be fostered, not to be provocatively attacked.

This thread is a disclosure of a publicly pronounced post made on another site, a "facebook" page of vile substance. The fact that a hierarch of Orthodox Christianity would even read or post on such a page is cause for substantial concern in and of itself, something his hierarchical authorities should be examining. And then, this hierarch writes on the site, for public consumption, an absolutely false accusation about the life style of one of the most esteemed and dynamic hierarchs to have served Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos, former primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. America, of Blessed Memory. He also makes a similar statement about another currently active, ruling American hierarch, which I thought was Archbishop Demetrios, but other posters have indicated that may not be the case. The allegation Archbishop Lazar posted on the homosexual related "facebook" page is as erroneous, deplorable, and vile as can be imagined, exceptionally unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian, and a hierarch at that.

"FatherHLL" among others, especially "Nigula Qian Zishi's" Reply No. 39's posting from the retired Bishop Tikhon, formerly of Los Angeles, have provided a perspective about Titular Archbishop Lazar, and the "economy" by which he was received into canonical Orthodoxy, as a "retired" hierarch, and I'd assume, first being elected to a titular see--a unique manner of reception. The information has been most valuable in developing an understanding of His Eminence's actions as seen in his post at issue, and will be a substantial contribution to the ultimate outcome in connection with Archbishop Lazar's actions as evidenced by his post which is at issue herein. And "FatherHLL's" comment in Reply No. 47 that you reply to sarcastically, implying it is un-Christian, is not that at all, is a rather rational and appropriate comment in light of the factual circumstances.

Michal, your "How Christian of you" post is provocative and passive-aggressive, utterly uncalled for, wholly inappropriate, and wrong minded. Your comment would be more appropriately addressed to the "retired," Titular Archbishop in response to his "facebook" post.

I ask you to reconsider the commentary you have sarcastically, erroneously deemed essentially un-Christian, and apologize to "FatherHLL" and the other members of "OC.net" for your, provocative, unwarranted statement in your Reply No. 49.

FatherHLL wrote that Abp Lazar should have never been received into the Orthodox Church. I don't believe it is a good attitude, especially taking into account what Christ said: "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.". I've also have never heard of such a precedence in history.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Since having read this post 13 hours ago, it has stuck in my mind. It is THE MOST UNFOUNDED POST I have ever seen on "OC.net" since I signed up nearly 5 years ago. "FatherHLL" has only contributed facts and informed opinions to this and other topics; he should be considered a valued member of this forum, one whose participation should be fostered, not to be provocatively attacked.

This thread is a disclosure of a publicly pronounced post made on another site, a "facebook" page of vile substance. The fact that a hierarch of Orthodox Christianity would even read or post on such a page is cause for substantial concern in and of itself, something his hierarchical authorities should be examining. And then, this hierarch writes on the site, for public consumption, an absolutely false accusation about the life style of one of the most esteemed and dynamic hierarchs to have served Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos, former primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. America, of Blessed Memory. He also makes a similar statement about another currently active, ruling American hierarch, which I thought was Archbishop Demetrios, but other posters have indicated that may not be the case. The allegation Archbishop Lazar posted on the homosexual related "facebook" page is as erroneous, deplorable, and vile as can be imagined, exceptionally unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian, and a hierarch at that.

"FatherHLL" among others, especially "Nigula Qian Zishi's" Reply No. 39's posting from the retired Bishop Tikhon, formerly of Los Angeles, have provided a perspective about Titular Archbishop Lazar, and the "economy" by which he was received into canonical Orthodoxy, as a "retired" hierarch, and I'd assume, first being elected to a titular see--a unique manner of reception. The information has been most valuable in developing an understanding of His Eminence's actions as seen in his post at issue, and will be a substantial contribution to the ultimate outcome in connection with Archbishop Lazar's actions as evidenced by his post which is at issue herein. And "FatherHLL's" comment in Reply No. 47 that you reply to sarcastically, implying it is un-Christian, is not that at all, is a rather rational and appropriate comment in light of the factual circumstances.

Michal, your "How Christian of you" post is provocative and passive-aggressive, utterly uncalled for, wholly inappropriate, and wrong minded. Your comment would be more appropriately addressed to the "retired," Titular Archbishop in response to his "facebook" post.

I ask you to reconsider the commentary you have sarcastically, erroneously deemed essentially un-Christian, and apologize to "FatherHLL" and the other members of "OC.net" for your, provocative, unwarranted statement in your Reply No. 49.

FatherHLL wrote that Abp Lazar should have never been received into the Orthodox Church. I don't believe it is a good attitude, especially taking into account what Christ said: "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.". I've also have never heard of such a precedence in history.

I can't speak for Father, but I suspect he meant that the Archbishop should not have been received into the canonical Church with the dignity and office of Bishop. I suspect that Father would not have objected to his reception as a penitent.

As an example, back in the 1920's when Bishop Stephen (Alexander Dzubay) returned to the Church of Rome (He was formerly a Greek Catholic priest, converted to Orthodoxy, was consecrated a Bishop by the Russian Church, became disillusioned with the Russians and then returned as a penitent to the Church of Rome) he was 'banished' to a Latin-rite Monastery in Graymoor, NY where he quietly lived out his life and was buried with the dignity of a Bishop in 1933.

I am declaring a time out until next Monday. Sorry I did not catch the escalation in rhetoric earlier but I had my tenth heart transplant anniversary check-up yesterday. I am happy to report that the lab results were fine, as was the left/right heart catheterization report. Carl Kraeff

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

So if ROCOR says one thing and the OCA another, who is believed? Does he concelebrate with ROCOR clergy?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Remember there is a reason that ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev Puhalo, who then left to join the "Free Serbs" where he became a "presbyter" then left to join the "Milan Synod" where he became a "Bishop" with the name Lazar, then left for the "Kiev Patriarchate" where he became an "Archbishop" then was accepted by the OCA as a retired hierarch without any teaching faculties. Hence, Bishop Tikhon rightfully calls him Deposed Deacon Lev.

It is not up to Bishop Tikhon to gainsay the decision of the Holy Synod. Indeed, this Forum does not accept such personal decisions; we must continue to refer to +Lazar in accordance with proper etiquette spelled out in our rules.

So if ROCOR says one thing and the OCA another, who is believed? Does he concelebrate with ROCOR clergy?

So if (insert one Jurisdiction) says one thing and the (insert a different jurisdiction) who is believed? MP vs EP who is right? Goarch vs other jurisdictions having converts remarry in the church. I think that is a much bigger issue than this.

Very true, but I meant for this forum and its preoccupation with assigning proper titles.

Well, it seems if one I was in ROCOR I wouldn't refer to him by any title, and shouldn't that be respected? If my hierarchy defrocked him it would be improper for me to recognize him and offensive for me to be compelled to do so.

As of the ROCOR-Russian Orthodox Church reconciliation of the Feast Day of the Ascension of our Lord of 2007, all sins have been forgiven. Anyone who was in communion with the Church of Russia, its daughter-the OCA, or any of the Holy Orthodox Churches, resumed the sharing of communion. I thought there was a commission that was to examine each of the instances of those who were unfrocked, but I never saw the results of that anywhere. Does anyone recall such a commission?

Since having read this post 13 hours ago, it has stuck in my mind. It is THE MOST UNFOUNDED POST I have ever seen on "OC.net" since I signed up nearly 5 years ago. "FatherHLL" has only contributed facts and informed opinions to this and other topics; he should be considered a valued member of this forum, one whose participation should be fostered, not to be provocatively attacked.

This thread is a disclosure of a publicly pronounced post made on another site, a "facebook" page of vile substance. The fact that a hierarch of Orthodox Christianity would even read or post on such a page is cause for substantial concern in and of itself, something his hierarchical authorities should be examining. And then, this hierarch writes on the site, for public consumption, an absolutely false accusation about the life style of one of the most esteemed and dynamic hierarchs to have served Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos, former primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. America, of Blessed Memory. He also makes a similar statement about another currently active, ruling American hierarch, which I thought was Archbishop Demetrios, but other posters have indicated that may not be the case. The allegation Archbishop Lazar posted on the homosexual related "facebook" page is as erroneous, deplorable, and vile as can be imagined, exceptionally unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian, and a hierarch at that.

"FatherHLL" among others, especially "Nigula Qian Zishi's" Reply No. 39's posting from the retired Bishop Tikhon, formerly of Los Angeles, have provided a perspective about Titular Archbishop Lazar, and the "economy" by which he was received into canonical Orthodoxy, as a "retired" hierarch, and I'd assume, first being elected to a titular see--a unique manner of reception. The information has been most valuable in developing an understanding of His Eminence's actions as seen in his post at issue, and will be a substantial contribution to the ultimate outcome in connection with Archbishop Lazar's actions as evidenced by his post which is at issue herein. And "FatherHLL's" comment in Reply No. 47 that you reply to sarcastically, implying it is un-Christian, is not that at all, is a rather rational and appropriate comment in light of the factual circumstances.

Michal, your "How Christian of you" post is provocative and passive-aggressive, utterly uncalled for, wholly inappropriate, and wrong minded. Your comment would be more appropriately addressed to the "retired," Titular Archbishop in response to his "facebook" post.

I ask you to reconsider the commentary you have sarcastically, erroneously deemed essentially un-Christian, and apologize to "FatherHLL" and the other members of "OC.net" for your, provocative, unwarranted statement in your Reply No. 49.

FatherHLL wrote that Abp Lazar should have never been received into the Orthodox Church. I don't believe it is a good attitude, especially taking into account what Christ said: "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.". I've also have never heard of such a precedence in history.

I'm sorry but I can't understand how you could possibly have perceived that "FatherHLL" was commenting about Archbishop Lazar's return to the OCA as a simple laymen---nowhere has that been stated or alluded to in the commentary within this topic, as the context of this entire discussion is about his conduct as a "retired" Archbishop. It was audacious of you to be so provocative as to simply reply, "How Christian of you;" your comment was a punch below the belt, to not be as specific as I'd feel I should be. What an outrageously unwarranted reply to substantive commentary! Forgiveness is one thing, ratification of his previously non-canonical archepiscopacy is quite another, and forgiveness was not the context of the discussion.

I'm sorry but I can't understand how you could possibly have perceived that "FatherHLL" was commenting about Archbishop Lazar's return to the OCA as a simple laymen---nowhere has that been stated or alluded to in the commentary within this topic, as the context of this entire discussion is about his conduct as a "retired" Archbishop. It was audacious of you to be so provocative as to simply reply, "How Christian of you;" your comment was a punch below the belt, to not be as specific as I'd feel I should be. What an outrageously unwarranted reply to substantive commentary! Forgiveness is one thing, ratification of his previously non-canonical archepiscopacy is quite another, and forgiveness was not the context of the discussion.

In the context of this particular ecclesiastical reception, the dynamics of repentance and forgiveness were simply not at work. Lev Puhalo (as I will call him, respecting the decision of ROCOR's Synod to depose him) never repented of his "soul sleep" heresy or his public campaign against the patristic tollhouse teaching. It seems that he now denies having taught soul sleep, but with his "Retired Archbishop of the OCA" title he uses this platform to speak even more vocally against the patristic tollhouse teaching while adding to his first errors even more heretical nonsense. If he had repented, he would have returned to the Synod that had deposed him, but that would require that he give up the empty and presumptuous titles that he worked so hard to obtain from the schismatic groups that he was with for so many years. Had he indeed repented, returned to ROCOR, agreed to remain as a simple monk, and refrained from teaching, I would certainly rejoice and rightfully respect him. Instead, he has become increasingly defiant, increasingly heretical, all the while denouncing as a "cult" and "heretical" the very Synod that rightfully deposed him (ROCOR).

You are warned for 99 days for purposefully not using a title in order to make a point. This is an egregious violation of the rules and the next such violation will result in moderation. If you wish to appeal this decision, please follow the new appeal procedures (that is PM me first). Second Chance

Very true, but I meant for this forum and its preoccupation with assigning proper titles.

Well, it seems if one I was in ROCOR I wouldn't refer to him by any title, and shouldn't that be respected? If my hierarchy defrocked him it would be improper for me to recognize him and offensive for me to be compelled to do so.

Perhaps in those cases the order of precedence should decide. ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, which comes before the OCA, so ROCOR's decision should at least be allowed as a variant, if only for members of ROCOR and the MP.

I'm sorry but I can't understand how you could possibly have perceived that "FatherHLL" was commenting about Archbishop Lazar's return to the OCA as a simple laymen---nowhere has that been stated or alluded to in the commentary within this topic, as the context of this entire discussion is about his conduct as a "retired" Archbishop. It was audacious of you to be so provocative as to simply reply, "How Christian of you;" your comment was a punch below the belt, to not be as specific as I'd feel I should be. What an outrageously unwarranted reply to substantive commentary! Forgiveness is one thing, ratification of his previously non-canonical archepiscopacy is quite another, and forgiveness was not the context of the discussion.

In the context of this particular ecclesiastical reception, the dynamics of repentance and forgiveness were simply not at work. Lev Puhalo (as I will call him, respecting the decision of ROCOR's Synod to depose him) never repented of his "soul sleep" heresy or his public campaign against the patristic tollhouse teaching. It seems that he now denies having taught soul sleep, but with his "Retired Archbishop of the OCA" title he uses this platform to speak even more vocally against the patristic tollhouse teaching while adding to his first errors even more heretical nonsense. If he had repented, he would have returned to the Synod that had deposed him, but that would require that he give up the empty and presumptuous titles that he worked so hard to obtain from the schismatic groups that he was with for so many years. Had he indeed repented, returned to ROCOR, agreed to remain as a simple monk, and refrained from teaching, I would certainly rejoice and rightfully respect him. Instead, he has become increasingly defiant, increasingly heretical, all the while denouncing as a "cult" and "heretical" the very Synod that rightfully deposed him (ROCOR).

Understood, especially in light of his actions that are the initial topic of this thread.

Very true, but I meant for this forum and its preoccupation with assigning proper titles.

Well, it seems if one I was in ROCOR I wouldn't refer to him by any title, and shouldn't that be respected? If my hierarchy defrocked him it would be improper for me to recognize him and offensive for me to be compelled to do so.

Perhaps in those cases the order of precedence should decide. ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, which comes before the OCA, so ROCOR's decision should at least be allowed as a variant, if only for members of ROCOR and the MP.

Informal warning to all: It is one thing to discuss the merits of not using titles, it is another not using them on this Forum. Thanks, Second Chance

Since having read this post 13 hours ago, it has stuck in my mind. It is THE MOST UNFOUNDED POST I have ever seen on "OC.net" since I signed up nearly 5 years ago. "FatherHLL" has only contributed facts and informed opinions to this and other topics; he should be considered a valued member of this forum, one whose participation should be fostered, not to be provocatively attacked.

This thread is a disclosure of a publicly pronounced post made on another site, a "facebook" page of vile substance. The fact that a hierarch of Orthodox Christianity would even read or post on such a page is cause for substantial concern in and of itself, something his hierarchical authorities should be examining. And then, this hierarch writes on the site, for public consumption, an absolutely false accusation about the life style of one of the most esteemed and dynamic hierarchs to have served Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the Western Hemisphere, Archbishop Iakovos, former primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. America, of Blessed Memory. He also makes a similar statement about another currently active, ruling American hierarch, which I thought was Archbishop Demetrios, but other posters have indicated that may not be the case. The allegation Archbishop Lazar posted on the homosexual related "facebook" page is as erroneous, deplorable, and vile as can be imagined, exceptionally unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian, and a hierarch at that.

"FatherHLL" among others, especially "Nigula Qian Zishi's" Reply No. 39's posting from the retired Bishop Tikhon, formerly of Los Angeles, have provided a perspective about Titular Archbishop Lazar, and the "economy" by which he was received into canonical Orthodoxy, as a "retired" hierarch, and I'd assume, first being elected to a titular see--a unique manner of reception. The information has been most valuable in developing an understanding of His Eminence's actions as seen in his post at issue, and will be a substantial contribution to the ultimate outcome in connection with Archbishop Lazar's actions as evidenced by his post which is at issue herein. And "FatherHLL's" comment in Reply No. 47 that you reply to sarcastically, implying it is un-Christian, is not that at all, is a rather rational and appropriate comment in light of the factual circumstances.

Michal, your "How Christian of you" post is provocative and passive-aggressive, utterly uncalled for, wholly inappropriate, and wrong minded. Your comment would be more appropriately addressed to the "retired," Titular Archbishop in response to his "facebook" post.

I ask you to reconsider the commentary you have sarcastically, erroneously deemed essentially un-Christian, and apologize to "FatherHLL" and the other members of "OC.net" for your, provocative, unwarranted statement in your Reply No. 49.

FatherHLL wrote that Abp Lazar should have never been received into the Orthodox Church. I don't believe it is a good attitude, especially taking into account what Christ said: "But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.". I've also have never heard of such a precedence in history.

I can't speak for Father, but I suspect he meant that the Archbishop should not have been received into the canonical Church with the dignity and office of Bishop. I suspect that Father would not have objected to his reception as a penitent.

Exactly. As you and Basil320 have pointed out, it is a self-evident part of the post that I was referring to receiving him as a hierarch, not as a layman, since that was the discussion, eg that Abp Lazar was received as a hierarch.

That's great. I guess goodness can be found in anyone, even one who promotes utterly false behavior about a hierarch who has passed from this life (see the original post), who may have experienced controversy in relation to his actions during his long archepiscopal service to the Church in America, but whose moral behavior was never in question, let alone victimized by the vile lies in link in the original post.

That's great. I guess goodness can be found in anyone, even one who promotes utterly false behavior about a hierarch who has passed from this life (see the original post), who may have experienced controversy in relation to his actions during his long archepiscopal service to the Church in America, but whose moral behavior was never in question, let alone victimized by the vile lies in link in the original post.

Indeed, it is often noted in their biographies that many bad people in world history loved their dogs and cats....

I am not a longtime friend of Arch. Lazar or anything like that, but I spent a lot of time with him during his two trips to the UK this year and got to know him fairly well. I found him to be a true gentleman, on the whole very traditional (his view on how we treat homosexuals should not be confused with an acceptance of homosexual relationships as appropriate), gracious, generous, thoughtful and kind. Certainly not comparable to Hitler's love for his dog. I think his comments about H.G. Iakovos were very unfortunate. It may be that he, as someone who claims to have suffered from sexual harassment at the hands of clergy in the past (hence his preoccupation with the subject), wrongly interpreted H.G. Iakovos' words or actions, leading to the claims in question. I don't know. Even if he genuinely believes it to be true, his words on a public forum were very inappropriate, and I am not defending them. Nonetheless, I just wanted to share the fact that the demonizing of him that often happens on this forum and elsewhere does not in any way match up to my own experience of him.

I'll have to start reading up on him, I know nothing about him or his views. It only gets my interest now that jckstraw72 syas he's the most dangerous person in the Church, if you listen to him.

He's published numerous books and a has hundreds of videos up on his allsaintsmonastery youtube channel.

Oh my gosh, that's HIM?! I used to watch those videos all the time, but wow I feel like an idiot now. I didn't know that was him.

EDIT: One of the biggest gaffe's he made, IMO, was grouping Mormonism with Protestants thinking they are the same. And also to some extent about how it doesn't matter if St Matthew didn't write his Gosepl, but the issue I found there was how he used it in his apologetics.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 10:45:01 PM by Achronos »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Oh my gosh, that's HIM?! I used to watch those videos all the time, but wow I feel like an idiot now. I didn't know that was him.

I strongly disagree with his view of the OT historical books. Beyond that, however, I haven't heard him say anything contrary to Orthodox Tradition. It tends to be the homosexuality issue that gets many people worked up. He has indicated several times in his videos that he considers homosexual relationships sinful, and he told me privately that "I would rather die than marry homosexuals", not that people listen. There are also those who think you have to be anti-evolution and anti-science to be an Orthodox Christian and who hate him on that account. They seem to fail to realise that on that basis they'd probably be at odds with the vast majority of Orthodox bishops around the world. Then, of course, there are the toll-houses, which have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

Oh my gosh, that's HIM?! I used to watch those videos all the time, but wow I feel like an idiot now. I didn't know that was him.

I strongly disagree with his view of the OT historical books. Beyond that, however, I haven't heard him say anything contrary to Orthodox Tradition. It tends to be the homosexuality issue that gets many people worked up. He has indicated several times in his videos that he considers homosexual relationships sinful, and he told me privately that "I would rather die than marry homosexuals", not that people listen. There are also those who think you have to be anti-evolution and anti-science to be an Orthodox Christian and who hate him on that account. They seem to fail to realise that on that basis they'd probably be at odds with the vast majority of Orthodox bishops around the world. Then, of course, there are the toll-houses, which have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

His canonical standing and personal comments are another matter.

Yeah nothing he said, beyond a few things, seemed contrary to Orthodoxy. I'll have to watch his video on the OT historical books and I applaud him for his staunch stance on homosexuality. I think his tendency to be anti-evolution and anti-science may be more philosophically and ultimately detracting from the spirituality from the Orthodox Church.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I think his tendency to be anti-evolution and anti-science may be more philosophically and ultimately detracting from the spirituality from the Orthodox Church.

I get a different impression- he seems to be promoting the crudest scientism with regard to the visible creation and seems utterly uncritical of modern materialist science. And, of course, if you disagree with him, you must be a Gnostic or a fundamentalist.

I never cared about him one way or another. I always found it strange, though, how the OCA received him, as a retired archbishop; that still makes no sense to me. But I think I understand why they accepted him, now that I looked over his monastery's website and see what a wonderful facility it is. However, my feelings toward him are aggressively negative, since I saw the link posted in the original post which is a vile fabrication, a horrendous lie, about a hierarch who ranks among a very few in terms of his dedication and effective service to the Orthodoxy in the Western Hemisphere. The OCA should do to him what ROCOR was wise enough to do so many years ago, silence him.

he is problematic about the NT too -- he said the only reason Revelation made into the canon is that the Fathers actually believed it was by St. John and that it contains clearly Gnostic passages. He said this in the Ask an Orthodox Priest group on Facebook.

I think his tendency to be anti-evolution and anti-science may be more philosophically and ultimately detracting from the spirituality from the Orthodox Church.

I get a different impression- he seems to be promoting the crudest scientism with regard to the visible creation and seems utterly uncritical of modern materialist science. And, of course, if you disagree with him, you must be a Gnostic or a fundamentalist.

haha yeah, and yet he is the one who actually says Gnostic things. he said in one of his videos that science proves that you, yourself can be one gender, while your body is another. hmmmm, last i checked Orthodoxy teaches that the body IS you --- hello dualism.

I think his tendency to be anti-evolution and anti-science may be more philosophically and ultimately detracting from the spirituality from the Orthodox Church.

I get a different impression- he seems to be promoting the crudest scientism with regard to the visible creation and seems utterly uncritical of modern materialist science. And, of course, if you disagree with him, you must be a Gnostic or a fundamentalist.

Is there a video where he talks about this?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

His Wikipedia article has a picture of him censing an icon of Fr. Seraphim Rose. It's a sign of the end times.

Why?

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

This interview highlights his trademark schticks and obsessions: throwing words like "heresy" and "fundamentalist" around arbitrarily, making really simplistic remarks about Western Christianity, assuming empiricism as the only correct way of studying the natural world, etc.

I get a different impression- he seems to be promoting the crudest scientism with regard to the visible creation and seems utterly uncritical of modern materialist science. And, of course, if you disagree with him, you must be a Gnostic or a fundamentalist.

He is reacting to the anti-science stance of many fundamentalists that pushes so many, particularly youth, away from Christianity. In doing so he often lacks nuance and balance, but this does not equate a compromise of Orthodoxy.

Quote

His Wikipedia article has a picture of him censing an icon of Fr. Seraphim Rose. It's a sign of the end times.

People always make a big deal about that. He said he was serving in a church and they happened to have an icon of Fr. Seraphim. He didn't want to cause an uproar by skipping icons as he was censing (though given that Fr. Seraphim has yet to be canonised, he'd be right to do so even if he did believe he was a saint. That being said, he had nothing but good things to say about Fr. Seraphim when I talked to him, even though he disagreed with many of his positions.

Quote

haha yeah, and yet he is the one who actually says Gnostic things. he said in one of his videos that science proves that you, yourself can be one gender, while your body is another. hmmmm, last i checked Orthodoxy teaches that the body IS you --- hello dualism.

Saying that a persons genitalia may not match the gender of that individual's personhood is not a form of dualism, but refers to a biological reality. We would not consider this idea at all odd if it referred to any other kind of physical deformity.

I get a different impression- he seems to be promoting the crudest scientism with regard to the visible creation and seems utterly uncritical of modern materialist science. And, of course, if you disagree with him, you must be a Gnostic or a fundamentalist.

He is reacting to the anti-science stance of many fundamentalists that pushes so many, particularly youth, away from Christianity. In doing so he often lacks nuance and balance, but this does not equate a compromise of Orthodoxy.

Quote

His Wikipedia article has a picture of him censing an icon of Fr. Seraphim Rose. It's a sign of the end times.

People always make a big deal about that. He said he was serving in a church and they happened to have an icon of Fr. Seraphim. He didn't want to cause an uproar by skipping icons as he was censing (though given that Fr. Seraphim has yet to be canonised, he'd be right to do so even if he did believe he was a saint. That being said, he had nothing but good things to say about Fr. Seraphim when I talked to him, even though he disagreed with many of his positions.

Quote

haha yeah, and yet he is the one who actually says Gnostic things. he said in one of his videos that science proves that you, yourself can be one gender, while your body is another. hmmmm, last i checked Orthodoxy teaches that the body IS you --- hello dualism.

Saying that a persons genitalia may not match the gender of that individual's personhood is not a form of dualism, but refers to a biological reality. We would not consider this idea at all odd if it referred to any other kind of physical deformity.

he opposed the person to the body ... you yourself vs. the body ... thats dualism.

and i quite frankly dont believe him when he says nice things about Fr. Seraphim. he tries to say he was a righteous struggler or whatever, and yet in print he calls him a heretic. i think he's now trying to moderate how insane he has made himself look.

read Fr. Seraphim's Soul After Death, he quotes him several times from the Tlingit Herald.

Thanks. I'll see if I can get hold of the whole article from Tlingit somehow. Interesting to note, though, that Fr. Seraphim (p.228) dismisses as irrelevant the quotes used by the 'critic' to demonstrate how man is composed of both soul and body, so even here is proof that he is not a dualist as you claim.

read Fr. Seraphim's Soul After Death, he quotes him several times from the Tlingit Herald.

Thanks. I'll see if I can get hold of the whole article from Tlingit somehow. Interesting to note, though, that Fr. Seraphim (p.228) dismisses as irrelevant the quotes used by the 'critic' to demonstrate how man is composed of both soul and body, so even here is proof that he is not a dualist as you claim.

Years ago he came and gave a talk to our parish. The talk itself was on prayer, and I found it edifying. My conversation with him afterwards left me with a rather disturbed impression, though. Regarding his writings, I'm sure there is a gem or two in the piles of manure, but I think a person risks great harm to their soul by reading them. There is so much intellectual haughtiness there, to much crying out for attention and praise, and corresponding tendency to push right up against heresy in certain directions for the sake of attention, while carefully trying not to cross totally over the line. In some cases, the line has been crossed and he has retracted without admitting former error (soul sleep heresy, for instance), and in some cases it seems that which side of the line he is on depends on who he is speaking to and attempting to please (whether same gender sex is a sin, or whether the issue is more about HOW the Church treats those with same sex attraction).

Nobody should do obedience to anonymous people on the Internet who they have no relationship with, but that doesn't relieve me of the responsibility to express the warning that reading his works can greatly harm your soul regardless of how "patristic" you believe your phronema to be (he believes himself to be quite patristic). His writings and teachings need to be ignored, and his soul fervently prayed for.

Years ago he came and gave a talk to our parish. The talk itself was on prayer, and I found it edifying. My conversation with him afterwards left me with a rather disturbed impression, though. Regarding his writings, I'm sure there is a gem or two in the piles of manure, but I think a person risks great harm to their soul by reading them. There is so much intellectual haughtiness there, to much crying out for attention and praise, and corresponding tendency to push right up against heresy in certain directions for the sake of attention, while carefully trying not to cross totally over the line. In some cases, the line has been crossed and he has retracted without admitting former error (soul sleep heresy, for instance), and in some cases it seems that which side of the line he is on depends on who he is speaking to and attempting to please (whether same gender sex is a sin, or whether the issue is more about HOW the Church treats those with same sex attraction).

Nobody should do obedience to anonymous people on the Internet who they have no relationship with, but that doesn't relieve me of the responsibility to express the warning that reading his works can greatly harm your soul regardless of how "patristic" you believe your phronema to be (he believes himself to be quite patristic). His writings and teachings need to be ignored, and his soul fervently prayed for.